Ban Housing Discrimination Based on Income

Full Title:
Landlord Accountability Act of 2025

Summary#

This bill would change the Fair Housing Act to make “source of income” a protected status. That means landlords, sellers, and housing providers could not refuse housing because a person uses housing vouchers or other forms of public or private income support. The bill also creates new penalties for owners who intentionally make units uninhabitable or who keep qualifying units vacant to avoid renters using federal housing programs. It adds complaint and enforcement tools at HUD, a new tax credit for landlords who maintain units serving voucher users, and grant funds for tenant-harassment programs.

  • Main change: Adds “source of income” (explicitly including Section 8 vouchers, Social Security, SSI, child support, trusts, savings, and other income types) to the Fair Housing Act’s protected categories.
  • Penalties: Owners who intentionally render a unit ineligible for federal housing assistance would face $100,000 civil penalties; tenants could sue for $50,000 per act plus actual damages. Intentionally leaving certain multifamily units vacant for more than 60 days can trigger $100,000 per 30-day penalties.
  • HUD enforcement and transparency: HUD must expand staff for a Multifamily Housing Complaint Line, create a complaint resolution program, publish complaints on its website, and report annually to Congress.
  • Tax and financial incentives: A new federal tax credit would cover qualifying maintenance expenses for landlords who keep units available and timely remedy complaints. The bill also authorizes federal funding for fair-housing enforcement programs and a national awareness campaign.
  • Tenant protections: Owners of qualifying multifamily projects must post tenant-rights notices and could face daily fines for failing to post them. Grants would be available for tenant-harassment prevention programs.

What it means for you#

  • People using housing vouchers (voucher users): It would likely be illegal for landlords to refuse to rent to you because you use a voucher or other government housing assistance. HUD would publish complaint information and offer a new complaint-resolution process.
  • Tenants in multifamily projects: Owners must post a tenant-rights notice on every floor. If a landlord intentionally makes your unit uninhabitable to block eligibility for vouchers, you could sue and seek damages.
  • Landlords and property owners: You cannot discriminate based on a tenant’s source of income. You face heavy civil penalties if HUD finds you intentionally rendered a unit ineligible for assistance or left qualifying units intentionally vacant beyond the time limits. You may be eligible for a maintenance tax credit if you meet the program’s conditions and timely fix complaints.
  • Housing authorities and HUD: HUD must increase complaint-line staffing, set up a complaint resolution program, publish complaint data publicly, and produce annual reports to Congress. HUD must also issue several sets of regulations and a model notice within set timeframes.
  • Local governments and nonprofits: Eligible entities can apply for grants to create or expand tenant-harassment prevention programs. Up to 75% of program costs may be covered by grant funds.
  • Taxpayers: The bill authorizes new federal spending on enforcement and grants, and it creates a tax credit that would reduce federal revenues. Exact net fiscal impact is not stated in the bill text.

Expenses#

Estimated public cost: The bill specifies several funding amounts, but it does not provide an overall fiscal estimate or projected revenue loss from tax credits.

  • Authorized annual appropriations: $90 million per year (FY2026–2035) for the Fair Housing Initiatives Program; $47 million per year (FY2026–2035) for the Fair Housing Assistance Program.
  • Public awareness: $3 million total authorized for FY2026–2028 for a HUD media campaign about expanded rights.
  • Grants for tenant-harassment programs: Authorizes $25 million per year for each of FY2024–2028 for grants to states, tribes, local governments, and nonprofits.
  • Tax credit effects: The bill creates a new low-income housing maintenance credit for eligible landlords (with per-unit, per-building, and per-taxpayer caps) effective for taxable years after Dec 31, 2025 and ending after Dec 31, 2035. The bill does not estimate lost federal revenue from this credit.
  • Administrative costs: HUD must hire or reassign staff to expand the complaint line and administer the complaint resolution program. No specific staffing or cost estimates are provided for these operations beyond the authorizations above.

If you need a formal budget estimate or projected revenue impact, no such fiscal note is included in the bill text provided.

Proponents' View#

The bill appears intended to address barriers voucher users and other low-income households face when looking for housing. Possible arguments in favor, based on the bill text:

  • The bill appears intended to reduce discrimination against people who use housing vouchers or receive public benefits by adding “source of income” as a protected status under the Fair Housing Act.
  • It could discourage owners from deliberately degrading or holding units empty to avoid renting to voucher holders, by creating large financial penalties and tenant remedies.
  • The complaint-line expansion, complaint-resolution program, public disclosure of complaints, and outreach campaign are aimed at improving enforcement and informing tenants of their rights.
  • The tax credit and maintenance incentives are designed to encourage landlords to keep units in good condition and to accept tenants who use vouchers.
  • Grants for tenant-harassment prevention programs would support legal aid, counseling, and education to help tenants resist harassment.

Opponents' View#

The bill raises practical and implementation questions that could concern landlords, HUD, and other stakeholders. Possible concerns, based on the bill text:

  • The civil penalties are large ($100,000 per violation or per 30-day vacancy period, and $50,000 per tenant civil action). One concern is whether the bill gives clear standards for proving “intent” to make a unit ineligible or intentionally leave it vacant.
  • The “qualifies for assistance within the jurisdiction of the Department” phrase recurs throughout the bill. It is not fully explained in the bill text here and may create uncertainty about which properties are covered.
  • The vacancy penalty includes a presumption that vacancy between tenancies is for repairs, but the rule allows rebuttal by a prospective tenant. It is unclear what counts as a “reasonable period” for repairs and how often disputes will go to adjudication.
  • HUD must carry out new staffing, complaint-resolution, disclosure, and reporting duties. The bill authorizes money for some programs, but it does not supply detailed estimates for staff levels or administrative costs, and the tax credit will reduce federal revenue without a stated estimate.
  • Public disclosure of complaint details about specific multifamily housing projects could affect owners’ reputations before complaints are resolved. The bill requires disclosure “on a timely basis,” but it does not define timelines or privacy safeguards in detail.
  • Smaller landlords may face new compliance burdens (posting notices, responding to complaints quickly, entering into binding rent agreements to qualify for credits), which could be costly or administratively difficult.

What is unclear: The bill text sets many new duties and penalties but leaves some practical rules to future HUD regulations (for example, how HUD will determine intent, exact procedures for the complaint-resolution program, and the details of the binding agreements landlords must sign to receive the tax credit).